Post on 01-Nov-2020
The Impact of Study Abroad on Affective Factors: Motivation, Attitudes and Anxiety
Saioa Rodríguez Aparicio
Supervisor: David Lasagabaster Department: English and German Philology and Translation and Interpretation Degree in English Studies Academic year: 2017/18
i
Abstract
Interest in study abroad (SA) and its linguistic outcomes has significantly increased in
recent years due to globalisation and its emphasis on intercultural communication (Arnett,
2002). Nevertheless, although affective factors play a crucial role in the successful
acquisition of an L2 (Gabrys-Barker and Bielska, 2013), little attention has been paid so
far to the extralinguistic effects of SA within Second Language Acquisition (SLA). The
purpose of this study is to analyse the relation between SA and motivation, attitudes and
anxiety for 25 Spanish university students. Affective outcomes were measured using a
modified version of Gardner’s (1985) Attitudes and Motivational Test Battery (AMTB)
survey as well as four open ended questions. This investigation sought to examine
whether SA led to an increase in L2 motivation, a decrease in L2 anxiety and a
development of positive attitudes towards the target language and its community. This
research also investigated whether SA resulted in an improved perception of students’
linguistic skills. Findings of the study demonstrated that participants’ instrumental and
integrative motivation increased significantly, and that language anxiety (LA) decreased
considerably, mainly in out-of-classroom contexts. Although students’ attitudes towards
the L2 became more positive, attitudes towards English native speakers displayed greater
variation since they depend on the amount and nature of students’ encounters with the
target group. Therefore, some participants reported a positive change in their stance
towards native speakers, others declared that their attitudes remained unchanged and,
although to a lesser extent, some students developed a negative image of English native
speakers. Finally, results exhibited an improvement on students’ perception of their
communicative competence, notably on their fluency. This study supports the view that
SA, together with learner strive to become competent L2 speakers, provides an optimal
context for the development of positive motivational, attitudinal and anxiety outcomes
that contribute to the successful acquisition of a foreign language.
Keywords: Study abroad; Motivation; Attitudes; Language anxiety.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... i
Glossary ........................................................................................................................... ii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
2. SA and SLA ................................................................................................................. 2
3. SA and Affective Factors ........................................................................................... 4
3.1. Motivation ............................................................................................................. 4
3.1.1. Motivation in SLA .......................................................................................... 4
3.1.2. Motivation and SA ......................................................................................... 6
3.2. Attitudes ................................................................................................................ 7
3.2.1. Attitudes in SLA ............................................................................................. 7
3.2.2. Attitudes and SA ............................................................................................. 8
3.3. Anxiety .................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.1. Anxiety in SLA ............................................................................................... 9
3.3.2. Anxiety and SA ............................................................................................ 10
4. The Study .................................................................................................................. 12
4.1. Participants .......................................................................................................... 12
4.2. Instrument ............................................................................................................ 12
4.3. Procedure ............................................................................................................. 13
5. Results ........................................................................................................................ 13
6. Discussion: Affective outcomes after SA ................................................................ 16
7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 20
References .................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 1: AMTB Survey ........................................................................................ 26
Appendix 2: Results of the AMTB Survey ................................................................ 29
ii
Glossary
AH: At Home
AMTB: Attitudes and Motivational Test Battery
FI: Formal Instruction
L2: Second Language
LA: Language Anxiety
SA: Study Abroad
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
WTC: Willingness to Communicate
1
1. Introduction
Each year countries from every continent send and receive a growing number of
students that take part in Study Abroad (SA) programmes. According to UNESCO, in
1975 there were approximately 0.8 million international students overseas. Less than four
decades later, this figure was fivefold: in 2013 campuses worldwide welcomed 4.1
million foreign students. This data confirms the assumption that overseas experiences are
becoming increasingly popular as a consequence of globalisation, which advocates for a
reinforcement of social relations, disregarding geographical boundaries (Arnett, 2002).
This author states that nowadays, as a result of the media, individuals develop a bicultural
identity, one of them being “an identity rooted in the local culture” whereas the second
one refers to “a global identity that gives them a sense of belonging to a world-wide
culture” (p. 777). Mobility programmes aim at reinforcing said international identity by
offering the possibility of integrating in the global community and thus, enhancing
students’ intercultural communicative competence, which refers to learners’ ability to
negotiate cultural meanings with individuals from different sociocultural backgrounds
(Pérez-Vidal, 2014).
Indeed, both long- and short-term mobility programmes offer the opportunity to
develop multicultural and multilingual knowledge. Kinginger (2009:11) defines SA as “a
temporary sojourn of pre-defined duration, undertaken for educational purposes”, one of
which is to enhance language expertise. After my own SA, I noticed that not only had my
level of English improved, but also that my motivation towards learning the language had
significantly increased and that a feeling of self-confidence had substituted the
nervousness present in my interactions in English prior to the sojourn. Furthermore, after
using the L2 with native speakers on a daily basis, I developed a more positive attitude
towards the target language and its community. This experience prompted me to explore
the relation between SA and motivation, attitudes and anxiety in order to investigate their
role in the successful acquisition of a foreign language.
The current study opens with a review of previous research on SA and Second
Language Acquisition (SLA). In section 3 I will provide a theoretical and empirical
framework of the three affective factors mentioned above and their relation with SA.
2
The following sections will deal with the investigation about the effect of SA on
25 university English L2 speakers’ motivation, attitudes and anxiety using the Attitudes
and Motivational Test Battery (AMTB) questionnaire (Gardner, 1985) and four open
ended questions. Results of the study will be analysed within the framework of the
previous research provided in section 3. Finally, I will conclude by summarising the main
points of the findings of the investigation as well as by offering some suggestions for
further research on the topic.
SA has gained popularity over the past decades due to the current globalised era,
which asks for an evaluation of its effects in order to provide the optimal context for the
development of language competence. This study together with the review of previous
research in the area offers an analysis of the role of SA and affective factors in foreign
language learning.
2. SA and SLA
It is widely believed that having an overseas experience helps to improve foreign
language proficiency, based on the common assumption that those who immerse
themselves in the target community will be the ones that perform best in their language
of specialisation (Freed, 1995). This presupposition is supported by several SLA theories:
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1985) states that SA offers valuable input that allows for an
unconscious or implicit language learning; the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) and
the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1995), on the other hand, highlight the role of SA on
explicit language development through interaction, meaning negotiation and language
production. Moreover, recent studies affirm that only the circumstances found in overseas
immersion lead to a native-like “electrophysiological signature” (Pérez-Vidal, 2014:2).
Nevertheless, research on linguistic gains after a period abroad seems to bring into
question the previously mentioned theories and beliefs, since SA has been frequently
found to have little or no impact on language development. Pérez-Vidal (2014) explains
that this contradiction could be attributed to different reasons, one of them being the
limited sample used in studies, from which it is difficult to draw conclusions that apply
to a larger number of language learners. Another possible reason is that research is often
based on comparisons between At Home (AH) and SA students. This contrast, however,
tends to focus on the dissimilarities between implicit and explicit instruction and does not
3
take individual differences into account, which can have a great influence on the
acquisition of a second language.
Nonetheless, several studies have analysed language development both in the
classroom and abroad, in order to establish the optimal context for L2 learning. According
to Freed (1995), overseas experiences encourage students to expand their communicative
repertoire by facing diverse situations that do not arise in the context of formal instruction
(FI). Indeed, Pérez-Vidal (2014) found that after a period abroad, SA students surpassed
AH students in terms of complexity, fluency and accuracy. Mora (2014) and Housen et
al. (2011), on the other hand, detected gains in the classroom context that did not take
place in the informal one, such as the discrimination ability or global competence.
Therefore, it is sensible to conclude that both formal and informal instruction are
beneficial for SLA, since each one provides a diverse range of situations that lead to the
development of different linguistic and extralinguistic skills. The classroom context tends
to enhance self-confidence and provides “a solid grammatical and lexical foundation”
(Pérez-Vidal, 2014:106), whereas informal instruction seems to increase learners’
motivation, fluency and listening skills.
Contradictions in SA findings may also be a consequence of the variables that are
being analysed, for research on linguistic gains after a period abroad exhibits diverse
outcomes depending on the skill assessed. For instance, while Allen’s (2002) study shows
a major development of SA students’ listening ability, Tanaka and Ellis’ (2003) analysis
revealed minor improvements in this particular skill. Nevertheless, scholars agree that
overseas experiences result in considerable positive changes on students’ fluency and oral
proficiency (Dufon and Churchill, 2006). However, these are greatly influenced by
learners’ interaction with the host community or their willingness to communicate
(WTC), which is, in turn, affected by each students’ personality traits. Freed (1995)
argued that proficiency level is likely to determine the amount of interaction with the
target community; that is, more advanced learners are more prone to develop social
networks with native speakers, whereas those less linguistically prepared tend to be less
willing to do so. Nonetheless, a later study carried out by Yashima et al. (2004) found
that interaction with the target community is influenced by learners’ perception of their
communicative competence rather than their proficiency level. Informal contact with
native speakers exposes learners to different situations that will enable them to develop
socio-pragmatic awareness along with their overall linguistic skills (Isabelli-García,
4
2006). In order for this integration to take place, traits such as persistence, self-confidence
and openness are essential. Therefore, it could be inferred that although SA offers the
opportunity to improve foreign language proficiency, the learning context along with the
amount and nature of the interaction with the host community are crucial for this
improvement to materialise (Dufon and Churchill, 2006).
Analyses of linguistic gains can however result in misleading conclusions about
the benefits of an overseas experience, since they do not take into account affective
outcomes after SA. This matter will be tackled along the different sections of the current
essay.
3. SA and Affective Factors
Affective Factors in SLA refer to individuals’ emotions and attitudes towards both
the foreign language and themselves as language learners. Studies have demonstrated that
they play a significant role on language acquisition: high levels of Language Anxiety
(LA), lack of motivation to learn the L2 or negative attitudes towards L2 speakers and
their language have been found to hinder the acquisition of a foreign language (Gabrys-
Barker and Bielska, 2013). Positive emotions together with low levels of LA, on the other
hand, were more likely to bring about greater linguistic gains. These findings are
supported by Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis, according to which, only
when the affective filter is dropped will the input reach learners’ Language Acquisition
Device. However, if students lack self-confidence or motivation, their filter will raise,
resulting in the hindrance of input entrance.
The following section will provide a theoretical and empirical framework of the
role of three affective factors (motivation, attitudes and anxiety) with regards to SLA and
their relation with SA.
3.1. Motivation 3.1.1. Motivation in SLA
Gardner (1985) defined the term motivation in SLA as a combination of the desire
to learn the language, positive attitudes towards said goal and the effort to achieve it. He
emphasised that only the presence of these three characteristics together will result in a
motivated individual. In isolation, they do not necessarily imply motivation, since a
5
student might experience the desire to learn a language but may not strive to do so, or
similarly, an individual may be driven to achieve said goal due to social pressures
(extrinsic motivation) and not as a result of their intrinsic motivation.
When considering individuals’ orientation to learn a language, or in other words,
the reason why they have that goal, Gardner (1985) distinguishes between two types of
orientations in relation to language learning. Instrumental orientation refers to the desire
to learn a language due to utilitarian or practical reasons such as enhancing future
professional success. The notion of integrative orientation, on the other hand, refers to
the yearning to learn a foreign language in order to interact with native speakers and
become acquainted with their culture. This concept, however, has been thoroughly
discussed over the past years as a result of the globalisation of the English language. As
previously stated, geographical boundaries are no longer considered limits due to
technological advancements such as social networks, which have had a significant
linguistic impact, especially on the English language. As a result, English does no longer
have a specific community of speakers, and therefore, learners may want to interact not
only with native speakers, but also with a wider community that does not necessarily
belong to English speaking countries (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009). The current situation
asked for a reformulation of the concept of integrative orientation. Yashima (2002:57)
broadens the meaning of integrativeness by using the notion of “international posture”,
which refers to the interest and open-mindedness towards overseas and multicultural
experiences, thus expanding the target community from a geographically definite group
of speakers to an extensive and international community of English speakers.
Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System, on the other hand, introduces a
different term that is likely to join both integrative and instrumental orientations,
generally considered opposing concepts. This term, known as the ideal L2 self, refers to
the ideal image of the attributes a language learner wished to have in the future, which
can function as a powerful motivator. This image could involve the L2 learner
communicating fluently with other L2 speakers (integrativeness) or using the L2 for work
purposes (instrumentality), or a combination of both orientations. The notion of the ideal
L2 self, therefore, offers a more updated model of L2 Motivation that conforms to the
current globalised era.
Nonetheless, the desire, attitudes and effort to attain a goal are context-dependent;
as Dörnyei (2009:249) explains, motivation is dynamic and it undergoes changes
6
influenced by “ongoing processes of identification, differentiation and the L2 learning
experience”. Therefore, as it will be seen in the next section, SA tends to have a big impact
on motivation, whose increase or decrease reflects its non-static nature. In the next
section, I will provide a review of the literature about the relation between SA and
motivation in order to show the different ways in which they can mutually influence each
other.
3.1.2. Motivation and SA
Several studies have focused on the motivational outcomes after an overseas
experience. The one carried out by Allen and Herron (2003) did not seem to detect an
increase in integrative motivation among 25 university French students after a summer
SA. These results may be partly explained by the students’ feelings of self-consciousness
or embarrassment when using the target language, which could have led to the avoidance
of interaction with native speakers. Therefore, it could be inferred that negative emotions
or thoughts may have a major influence on the effort to develop social networks within
the target community. This conclusion is supported by Dufon and Churchill’s (2006)
study of Spanish learners in North-American universities spending five months in
Argentina. The motivational outcomes after the period abroad varied considerably among
the SA students: unlike learners with low motivation, those that showed higher levels of
motivation interacted more often with native speakers and consequently, obtained greater
linguistic gains.
Similarly to the previous study by Allen and Herron (2003), the lack of WTC with
members of the target community was due to deficits in L2 learners’ motivation. Pérez-
Vidal (2014) also found a correlation between students’ initial motivation and positive
expectations towards SA, and their wish to interact with the target community.
Furthermore, Dufon and Churchill (2006) found a change in three of the learners’
motivational orientation (one of them from instrumental to integrative motivation and the
other two from instrumental to resultative low motivation due to negative experiences
with the host culture), which confirms its non-static nature. For this reason, motivation
should not be analysed in isolation, since it is connected with other factors such as
students’ self-image, their attitudes towards the L2 and its community, and the nature of
their social networks, among others.
Instrumental motivation, on the other hand, has been found to decrease after SA
7
(Pérez-Vidal, 2014). Yager (1998) found an association between higher levels of
integrative motivation and lower levels of instrumental motivation, and advanced L2
students’ significant linguistic gains.
The investigations mentioned above suggest that SA is likely to positively
impinge on students’ L2 motivation, especially on their integrativeness. At the same time,
L2 learners’ motivation can have a major influence on their experience overseas.
3.2. Attitudes 3.2.1. Attitudes in SLA
Gardner (1985:9) defined the concept of attitude as “an evaluative reaction to
some referent or attitude object, inferred on the basis of the individual’s beliefs or
opinions about the referent”. It has been widely claimed that attitudes have cognitive,
affective and conative components: they contain the individual’s belief structure, they
involve emotional reactions toward a referent and they prompt individuals to behave in a
certain way towards said referent. In SLA, two types of attitudes can be distinguished:
attitudes towards the L2 speakers and attitudes towards L2 learning. The latter, which
refers to teaching materials, method or the teachers’ behaviour among others, have been
found to have a more significant impact on the successful acquisition of the L2 (Gardner,
1985): individuals with positive attitudes tend to show a greater interest towards the
learning situation and as a result, they benefit the most from it, thus leading to higher
rates of achievement. It is worth mentioning, however, that although positive attitudes are
associated to achievement in foreign language courses, this is not necessarily the case in
other subject areas; in other words, attitudes seem to play a more significant role in
language learning than in the study of other subjects (Garrett et al., 2003).
Positive attitudes toward the target community, on the other hand, do not
necessarily prompt L2 proficiency, since an individual could hold positive attitudes
towards L2 native speakers but choose not to study their language due to reasons related
to the learning situation, such as a dislike for the language teaching method. Nevertheless,
the importance of this type of attitude should not be underestimated, for it can have a
major influence on students’ efforts to learn the language and become successful L2
speakers (Gardner, 1985).
Attitudes and motivation are closely connected since they imply an active stance
8
on the search for opportunities to learn and communicate in the L2 and, as a result, both
of them have a major impact on individuals’ language learning process. Furthermore, as
it has been previously mentioned, positive attitudes are essential in the portrayal of a
motivated individual, which implies that motivation has an attitudinal component
(Gardner, 1985). Therefore, as a constituent of motivation, attitudes are not static and are
subject to variation influenced by numerous factors such as SA. In the following section
I will provide the results of various studies with regards to the impact of overseas
experiences on students’ attitudinal changes.
3.2.2. Attitudes and SA Some scholars (Coleman, 1997; Willis et al. 1977) claim that SA does not seem
to yield favorable attitudinal changes toward the target community, since after SA
students tended to consider native speakers more negatively than before their departure.
The results of other studies, however, hold that SA plays a significant role in the
development and maintenance of positive attitudes. Yashima et al. (2004) investigated 60
Japanese students who took part in a mobility programme in the U.S. in order to research
the influence of attitudes on WTC. The results stated that learners with positive attitudes
toward the target community displayed a higher score in WTC and were more prone to
interact with native speakers, thus increasing the possibility of success in the L2.
Simultaneously, high contact with L2 native speakers resulted in positive changes in
students’ attitudes (Clement et al., 1977), which implies that language attitudes and WTC
are correlated, for they mutually influence each other. Furthermore, the findings of a study
carried out by Ueki and Takeuchi (2015) with 151 Japanese university students in an
English-speaking country, suggested that not only were attitudes towards L2 learning
strengthened after an overseas stay, but they also exercised a greater influence on
students’ motivated learning behaviour as a result of SA. Lopez and Gonzales (2017)
surveyed 640 Filipino college students in order to examine the relation between L2
learning motivation and L2 learning attitudes. Results of this study indicated that
motivation influences positively students’ attitudes towards the L2 learning. This finding
goes in line with Gardner (1985), who highlights the role of attitudes on individuals’
language learning motivation and its maintenance.
A study carried out by Isabelli-García (2006) about U.S. students in Argentina
exhibited the impact of attitudes toward the host culture on language learning motivation.
9
In spite of their initial positive attitudes, two of the students’ diaries manifested increasing
negative thoughts and opinions as SA drew on due to their experiences overseas. One of
the students reported feeling isolated and unable to integrate in the target community due
to cultural differences, which led her to find comfort in the familiarity of her American
friends and her L1. The other student, on the other hand, developed an unfavourable
perspective of Argentinian men, who according to him, were corrupt and offensive
towards women. Both learners’ negative attitudes toward the L2 community decreased
their motivation to learn Spanish and hindered the creation of social networks with native
speakers.
The studies mentioned above suggest that SA is likely to have a positive impact
on learners’ attitudes towards the L2. Nevertheless, attitudes towards the host community
show a greater variation since they depend on the amount and nature of students’
encounters with the target group.
3.3. Anxiety 3.3.1. Anxiety in SLA
LA is both a largely common and complex emotion, defined by Gregersen and
MacIntyre (2014:3) as “the worry and negative emotional reaction when learning and
using a second language and is especially relevant in a classroom where self-expression
takes place”. This description includes both learners and teachers, whose actions and
thoughts within the classroom are frequently affected by LA. Indeed, using a language
we are not proficient in poses considerable linguistic challenges to the users of the target
language that makes them feel worried or nervous about possible failures when trying to
communicate. It is widely believed that the more advanced learners are the ones less
likely to experience high levels of LA, since their L2 proficiency level minimises the
chances of possible misunderstandings. However, LA has been found to increase amongst
advanced learners, due to their perception of being in a more demanding situation that
leads them to doubt about their competence in the L2 (Gkonou et al., 2017).
LA primarily exerts a debilitating role in the learning process of the target
language, since rather than promoting L2 success it has been found to frequently hinder
it. Furthermore, LA tends to diminish learners’ positive attitudes toward the L2 and their
community, as well as to inhibit their WTC in said language; and it can ultimately lead
10
students to give up the study of the L2. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that LA
is subject to a dynamic and complex relationship with a variety of factors that make it
both the consequence and the cause of language performance: that is, anxiety may be the
outcome of language aptitude and, at the same time, its arousal may also affect learners’
performance (Gkonou et al., 2017). Lastly, these authors define LA as both internal and
framed within an external dimension, since it is equally influenced by mental and
physiological processes, as well as by the set of circumstances of the social context.
Horwitz (2017) considers the concept of authentic self-presentation to be the
source of LA, as according to her, language learners frequently find a barrier between
communication in L2 and an authentic presentation of their identity in said language. This
generates feelings of frustration and discomfort that lead to anxiety towards the usage of
the target language. Moreover, self-esteem and perfectionism have been found to
correlate with LA: high-anxious students tend to view themselves more negatively and to
overanalyse their performance in the L2, which is thoroughly examined in the search for
mistakes or, what they consider, personal failures. In comparison to their low-anxious
peers, students with high levels of LA regard native speakers as being superior to them
and, as a result, they feel inhibited when interacting with them due to the fear of being
judged for not having such level of proficiency. In order to avoid these negative emotions
and discomfort, anxious students frequently engage in a number of safety behaviours
which involve diminishing verbal interaction or avoiding class participation altogether
(Gkonou et al., 2017).
Although students, especially those with high levels of LA, tend to hold feelings
of uncertainty towards SA, the following section will exhibit the positive impact overseas
experiences usually have on L2 learners’ anxiety.
3.3.2. Anxiety and SA
SA can generate feelings of uneasiness and embarrassment due to the challenges
that being in an unfamiliar environment poses. Nevertheless, students overseas tend to
overcome these negative emotions and experience lower levels of LA once they have
adjusted to the new situation (Pérez-Vidal, 2014).
Allen and Herron’s study (2003) detected a decrease in French students’ levels of
anxiety after a summer abroad, which implies that even short-term mobility programmes
can have a positive impact on learners’ LA. In line with the anxiety outcomes found in
11
Allen and Herron’s research, results of Ueki and Takeuchi’s (2015) study, mentioned in
section 3.2.2., indicated that students’ feelings of anxiety were significantly decreased
after SA. A more recent analysis of the same participants allowed for a more detailed
examination of the students’ affective changes after their experience overseas. Findings
indicated that prior to SA, participants’ anxiety was noticeably influenced by their ought-
to L2 self; that is, “the attributes that one believes one ought to possess” (Dörnyei et al.,
2006:17) in order to avoid criticism, failure or other negative outcomes. Nevertheless, as
a result of SA, the gap between students’ ideal L2 self and their ought-to L2 self was
narrowed, which turned the latter into a powerful motivator rather than a source of
anxiety.
Trenchs-Parera and Juan-Garau (2014) examined the effects of SA on a group of
Spanish university students after their stay in an English-speaking country. Results of the
questionnaire indicated that the levels of anxiety towards speaking English had greatly
decreased. Moreover, learners rated themselves as more calm and confident when
interacting with native speakers, who are probably the individuals who L2 learners view
as the most challenging to communicate with. LA and linguistic self-confidence were
found to be closely correlated: when the first one decreased, the latter increased,
suggesting that when language learners view themselves as capable communicators in the
L2, feelings of frustration or uneasiness tend to soften. Students’ WTC also increased as
a result of SA: not only were they more willing to use the L2 with the target community
or individuals from different countries, but they were also more willing to take part in
English classes after SA. Students seemed to be more confident to communicate in the
L2 in public and they also appeared to realise about the importance of having an active
stance in language classes in order to increase the chances of L2 success.
Lastly, as it has been previously mentioned, LA cannot be isolated from the
learner’s social context. Lim’s (2009) investigation of LA on participants from 32
different countries showed that anxiety tends to be greatly influenced by cultural values.
Asian learners were found to have the highest anxiety scores compared to students from
other countries: unlike individualistic cultures such as North America, East Asian
countries share collectivistic values that encourage the self to adjust to the demands and
expectations of others (Apple et al., 2017). As a result, the ought-to self tends to exert a
greater influence on Asian students, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of LA.
12
The investigations mentioned above suggest that SA has a positive impact on LA,
which is normally decreased as a result of successfully facing everyday situations in the
L2. The increase in students’ self-confidence boosts their WTC; that is, the perception of
being more competent L2 speakers encourages them to be more willing to use the target
language.
4. The Study
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of university students’ SA on their
motivation, attitudes and anxiety towards English. On the basis of said objective, four
main research questions are posed in the current study:
1. Is there a change in students’ motivation towards English as a result of SA?
2. Does SA result in more positive attitudes towards English and its native speakers?
3. Does SA decrease students’ levels of LA?
4. Does students’ perception of their English proficiency level improve after SA?
4.1. Participants
The participants of the current study were a group of 25 last year Spanish
university students of International Relations in the University of Deusto following a
compulsory year abroad during their third academic year. Students were mainly women
(20 females and 5 males) and were aged between 21 and 24. The mobility programme
offered a wide variety of locations to study, not exclusively English speaking countries,
and therefore, 14 students spent their SA in non-English-speaking countries. However,
their degree, both at home and overseas, is taught in English. At the time of the data
collection the participants had been learning the foreign language for 16 years and
therefore held an advanced level of English.
4.2. Instrument
In order to investigate the affective outcomes of the students’ SA I used a modified
version of the standardised Attitudes/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) developed by
Gardner (1985). The AMTB was slightly altered for a better adjustment to the group that
was being analysed. For research purposes, participants were asked to specify the SA
country and the amount of English they spoke on a scale from 0% to 100%. Nevertheless,
their identity was kept anonymous.
13
The first part of the questionnaire consisted of 16 statements that measured
students’ attitudes, anxiety and motivation towards English after their SA (see Appendix
1). The items required participants’ agreement or disagreement with said statements on a
5-point scale (from 1 – disagree – to 5 – agree –). The second part of the questionnaire
was comprised of four open questions regarding students’ perception of their affective
and linguistic outcomes after their SA. The answers to these questions were written in
English.
4.3. Procedure
The questionnaire was piloted on four students before using it to collect data, after
which no changes were deemed necessary. The participants were then provided with the
questionnaires, which were completed outside of class and directly delivered to the
researcher. On average, it took 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
5. Results
Participants rated 16 statements using a 5-point scale in order to show their
agreement or disagreement with items referring to integrative motivation (Q2, Q7, Q15),
instrumental motivation (Q4, Q10, Q13), positive attitudes (Q5, Q12, Q16) and negative
attitudes (Q6, Q9) towards English, and LA (Q1, Q3, Q8, Q11, Q14). Statements
addressing integrative motivation received high scores: most of the participants
acknowledged that SA made them regard English as a more valuable tool to interact with
a higher number of individuals (76%) and to participate more freely in intercultural
activities (80%). Furthermore, 68% of the answers stated that after SA, students enjoyed
more meeting and communicating with English speakers.
The questionnaire also showed an increase in learners’ instrumental motivation:
SA made them realise of the importance of English as a requirement for their future career
(68%) or as an asset to get a good job (92%). Question 13, however, exhibited more varied
answers: 48% of the students believed that the knowledge of English would make them
be more respected by society; 24%, on the other hand, disagreed with this statement and
28% of the answers remained neutral.
Regarding positive attitudes towards English, 76% of the participants agreed that
SA increased the desire of speaking said language perfectly and the same number of
students declared that they planned to learn as much English as possible after SA. 56%
14
of the answers agreed with the statement “I love learning English as a result of my stay
abroad”, while 28% of the students did not agree nor disagree with said question. All of
the participants (100%) disagreed with the two items referring to negative attitudes
towards English: “When I finish university I shall give up the study of English entirely
because I am not interested in it” and “I hate English as a result of my stay abroad”.
Questions addressing LA received diverse answers: almost half of the participants
(48%) denied being embarrassed to participate in their classes in English after SA.
However, nearly a quarter of them (24%) agreed with said statement, and 28% of the
answers remained neutral. 52% of the students recognised that before SA they were afraid
of being ridiculed by their peers when speaking in English; nevertheless, 40% of the
answers showed disagreement with this statement. Linked to the previous question, 14
students (56%) did no longer feel that their classmates spoke better English than them,
while 28% of the answers agreed with said statement. The last two questions exhibited
high agreement and disagreement scores: 48% of the participants denied still
experiencing nervousness or confusion when speaking in English, however, 32% of the
answers rated this item with either 4 or 5. Similarly, question 11 “Even after my stay
abroad, I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in our classes in English”
exhibited disagreement by nearly half of the participants (48%) and agreement by more
than a quarter of them (28%).
Concerning the open questions, the first one referred to students’ confidence when
speaking in English after SA. Participants claimed to feel less worried about speaking in
the L2 and making mistakes after SA. Indeed, emotions such as embarrassment,
nervousness or fear towards the L2 were softened as a result of having to use the language
on a daily basis. According to the students surveyed in this study, SA urged them to get
out of their comfort zone in order to be able to face the different challenges that life
overseas poses. The answer of one of the participants illustrates this feeling, which
according to her, led to an increase in her confidence:
Living in an environment that required me to communicate in English in order to
have positive relationships and achieve different goals (...) sort of forced me to
practice every day, hence making me more used to communicating in that
language until I became more fluent and therefore confident (Student 23).
15
In some cases, however, confidence seemed to be context-dependent: one of the
participants admitted feeling more self-assured when she returned to Spain and talked in
English “to people from here”. Nevertheless, she declared still not feeling confident
enough when interacting with English native speakers. Indeed, the latter seem to concern
some participants since they believe they are more likely to be judged for not having a
high level of proficiency. Nonetheless, numerous students indicated that they regard
native speakers as less threatening as a result of SA; one of the learners said that her
sojourn made her see English native speakers “much more similar to us, (…) as
vulnerable as we are” (Student 3).
It is worth mentioning that although the majority of the participants reported
feeling more confident when using the L2, one of them explained that in spite of having
improved his English during the stay overseas, he had not experienced an increase in his
confidence “due to my [his] personality” (Student 17). Four participants admitted not
having interacted much in English during SA, which led them to not perceive
improvements in the L2 and thus resulting in a lack of increase in their confidence.
The second question made reference to students’ willingness to use English after
SA. Except for one student that recognised not being eager to use the L2 unless asked to
do so, the rest of his peers declared that their WTC either increased or remained
unchanged since they were already very willing to use the L2. Several participants
attributed this boost in WTC to their increased self-confidence after their sojourn. One of
the students even claimed that SA motivated her to engage in other activities that involved
English, such as reading, which she continues to do whenever she is able to.
The question regarding participants’ attitudes towards English and English native
speakers after SA received rather diverse answers. 36% of the students indicated that they
already held positive attitudes towards the language and its community before the sojourn
and that these attitudes remained unchanged after SA. A few of them attributed the lack
of change to the few interactions they had either in the L2 or with L2 native speakers.
Several participants, on the other hand, declared that their SA made them get rid of some
stereotypes about native speakers and hold a more positive stance towards them: students
valued native speakers’ respectful and helpful attitude towards L2 learners. However,
four participants compared themselves and other English learners with native speakers,
highlighting the latter’s little effort to learn other languages. One of them reported that
16
during SA she realised that some English native speakers “tend to ridicule non-native
speakers because of their accent or pronunciation, rather than appreciating the effort we
are making” (Student 23), which can make them feel discouraged. Attitudes towards
English, on the other hand, seemed to become more positive: students declared
considering English more important and useful since SA allowed them to apply the
knowledge acquired in FI in real life situations. Furthermore, several answers emphasised
that as a result of SA, they began to enjoy using English: “before I went to England I used
to avoid speaking in English as it made me feel very anxious but after it I have gained a
lot of confidence and I enjoy using the language” (Student 24). It is also interesting to
mention that participants reported valuing this language more, since it allowed them to
feel integrated while abroad, not necessarily with native speakers, but with an English
speaking international community.
Lastly, the fourth open question referred to students’ perceptions of linguistic
gains after their SA. Except for those that had few interactions in English during their
sojourn (16%), the rest of the participants acknowledged that they had improved either
their overall level of English or certain aspects of it. One of the participants declared
having improved his overall linguistic skills and stated that “the exchange year is one of
the best opportunities to improve languages, and I strongly recommend the experience”
(Student 17). Fluency was the most repeated term among the answers to this question:
one of the participants defined it as “the capacity of answering quickly without having to
think how to say things for a long time” (Student 2). Listening ability was also reported
to improve as a result of being exposed to different accents and expressions, which, at the
same time, provided SA students with a wider range of vocabulary. Although to a lesser
extent (16%), pronunciation also seemed to improve, which, according to one of the
participants, had a big impact on increasing her confidence.
6. Discussion: Affective outcomes after SA
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between SA and its effects
on English language learners’ motivation, attitudes and anxiety. The first research
question aimed to examine whether participants experienced motivational changes after
SA. These students were already highly motivated to study English since their degree
requires advanced knowledge of this language together with interest towards international
affairs and communication; nevertheless, results indicated that both participants’
17
integrative and instrumental motivation increased, which confirms its dynamic nature, as
previously mentioned (Dörnyei, 2009). Unlike the investigation carried out by Allen and
Herron (2003) that did not find an increase in integrativeness, probably as a result of
participants’ lack of interaction with the host community, most of the students of the
current research, even those that stayed in non-English speaking countries, reported using
English on a daily basis and exhibited significant increase in integrative motivation. Not
only did they realise of the importance of studying English as a means of intercultural
communication, but they were also more willing to use the language more often to meet
and interact with other speakers. These results are consistent with Dufon and Churchill
(2006), who found a positive connection between integrative motivation and direct
contact with the L2 community, which, due to the globalisation of English, does not
necessarily refer to native speakers but rather to an international group of individuals.
Such contact, in turn, reinforces the notion of English as an essential tool to understand
the current global world (Pérez-Vidal, 2014). Furthermore, after their sojourn, students
associated speaking in English, frequently considered a source of anxiety, with positive
emotions such as enjoyment.
Students’ instrumental motivation also increased: utilitarian purposes such as
enhancing their future career encouraged participants to continue studying and improving
their English. Although one of them reported not having used English often while abroad,
it was during her sojourn when she realised that she had to improve her level and began
to take private English lessons when she returned home. Therefore, it could be said that
despite lack of interaction, SA can motivate learners to further their L2 studies in order
to become proficient speakers. Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self System includes
both promotion instrumentality and integrativeness in the formation of the ideal L2 self,
which functions as a powerful motivator to learn the L2. This implies that participants’
increase in both orientations strengthens the image of themselves as competent speakers
of English and prompts them to fulfill their goals.
Most students’ WTC either increased or remained unchanged due to preexisting
high levels of willingness prior to SA. The boost in WTC was attributed to participants’
increased self-confidence, which confirms that low levels of LA can be beneficial to
WTC, while high anxious students tend to be less willing to interact in the L2 (Gkonou
et al., 2017). Furthermore, in line with Clément et al. (1977), the current study found a
correlation between participants’ WTC and their attitudes towards the L2 and their
18
speakers: those students that frequently communicated in English while abroad exhibited
positive changes in their attitudes and vice versa, which demonstrates that WTC and
attitudes are mutually influential.
The second research question inquired whether SA resulted in more positive
attitudes towards English and English native speakers. Although participants already held
positive attitudes towards said language, they acknowledged that as a result of SA they
regarded English as a means of communication rather than as an academic subject or task.
The use of English in informal settings led to the appearance of positive feelings such as
enjoyment when speaking it, which is key to further the study of a foreign language.
Indeed, a stronger relation has been found between enjoyment and competent language
performance outside the classroom than within FI contexts, since successfully facing
everyday situations in the L2 acts as a strong motivator (Ross and Rivers, 2018).
Furthermore, participants’ high level of motivation confirms that it positively influences
their attitudes towards L2 learning (Lopez and Gonzalez, 2017).
Not all students encountered English native speakers during SA; however, those
that did, reported developing more positive attitudes towards them as a result of those
meetings. SA led to the reduction of negative stereotypes about native speakers, which is
beneficial for language learning (Trenchs-Parera and Juan-Garau, 2014). Nevertheless,
according to Coleman’s study (1997), SA students tend to hold more negative attitudes
towards the target community after SA. Although the positive attitudes most of the
participants declared having towards English native speakers seem to challenge
Coleman’s findings, it should be mentioned that some students of the current research did
develop negative attitudes. The encounters of four participants with the target community
resulted in the development of an unfavourable image of English individuals, who,
according to these SA students, often ridiculed L2 speakers instead of appreciating their
effort to communicate in a foreign language. In this case, these participants developed
positive attitudes towards the international community of English speakers, who they felt
identified with, rather than towards English native speakers: “I think English non-native
speakers tend to be more open-minded towards this subject [learning new languages]”
(Student 10).
The third research question aimed to examine whether LA decreased as a result
of SA. Results of the study indicated that although there was a general decrease in
19
participants’ LA, several answers to the questionnaire reflected that even after their SA,
some students still felt uneasy when speaking in English in formal contexts, which poses
the threat of being judged by teachers or classmates. As Trenchs-Parera and Juan-Garau
(2014) point out, on some occasions the benefits of SA cannot completely counteract
students’ levels of LA experienced at home before their sojourn. Moreover, one of the
participants of the current study attributed his unchanged LA to his personality, which
seems to imply that he experiences trait anxiety rather than state anxiety (Gkonou et al.,
2017); that is, his anxiety is not context-specific but a characteristic or a trait of his
personality, which may explain the little impact SA had on his LA.
It is also worth mentioning that the number of participants (72%) that
acknowledged feeling more confident after SA seems to be higher than the number of
students who reported experiencing low levels of anxiety in the closed questions. This
may be due to the fact that the latter referred to classroom anxiety, while students’
answers to the open questions focused on the feelings they experienced when
communicating in English in informal settings. It could be inferred, therefore, that after
SA, participants were more confident of their L2 linguistic skills outside the classroom
but still felt unsure in the FI context, where L2 performance is more likely to be examined.
Decrease in perfectionism and increase in fluency were the main reasons
mentioned by the participants to explain their gains in confidence and decrease of LA.
Gkonou et al. (2017) stated that focusing on fluency rather than accuracy tends to have
positive effects on students’ LA, which is reflected in the current study: during SA,
participants began to worry less about mistakes and placed a greater importance on
expressing themselves more easily. This helped them develop a more positive image of
themselves as competent L2 speakers, and thus, overcome the uneasiness that interacting
with native speakers frequently generates. Furthermore, as stated by one of the
participants, gains on fluency led to a more accurate expression of their thoughts. Horwitz
(2017) declared that the failure to present themselves authentically is often a source of
LA; however, authentic self-presentation seems to be more attainable for SA students as
a result of increased fluency and, consequently, they are more likely to experience a
decrease in LA.
The last research question aimed to investigate whether SA had an impact on
participants’ perception of their L2 competence. Students that had few interactions in
20
English while abroad did not experience an increase in their perceived L2 competence.
Nevertheless, most students declared being more fluent after their year abroad; as a result
of communicating in English on a daily basis they became more familiar with the
language and, therefore, its use began to entail a lesser effort. This confirms previous
findings that claim SA and informal instruction to have positive effects on L2 fluency
(Dufon and Churchill, 2006) as well as on listening skills (Allen, 2002; Pérez-Vidal,
2014). Indeed, several participants reported that as a result of SA they were more able to
understand their interlocutors and their accents. Students also acknowledged that they had
become more familiar with new words and expressions, which goes in line with Pérez-
Vidal’s (2014) findings of the positive effects of SA on L2 vocabulary. Pronunciation
gains, on the other hand, seemed to occur to a lesser extent in accordance with previous
studies that affirm that overseas experiences do not seem to enhance this language skill
(Pérez-Vidal, 2014).
The linguistic and extralinguistic gains experienced by the participants of this
study confirm that SA exposes learners to a variety of situations and interactions with
native or international English speakers that lead learners to develop both their socio-
pragmatic awareness as well as their overall linguistic skills.
7. Conclusion
The present study investigated the effect of SA on 25 university English L2
speakers’ motivation, attitudes and anxiety. Results of the study offer empirical evidence
that even stays in non-English speaking countries can have beneficial affective outcomes.
The findings revealed that mobility programmes contribute to the development of positive
attitudes towards the language, the increase in instrumental and integrative motivation,
and the decrease in LA, especially in informal settings. Furthermore, participants’
positive perception of linguistic gains –notably on fluency– demonstrated that their self-
confidence was enhanced as a result of SA, which in turn, made them see themselves as
more competent speakers. However, attitude change towards native speakers remains
inconclusive, for participants’ answers displayed great variation depending on the amount
and nature of their encounters with the target group. Therefore, some of them reported a
positive change in their stance towards native speakers, others declared that their attitudes
remained unchanged and, although to a lesser extent, some students developed a negative
image of English native speakers.
21
The lack of positive outcomes on participants that did not interact in the L2 while
abroad suggests that SA and student effort to use the L2 are mutually influential; that is,
language learners will experience the benefits of informal contact provided that they
strive to create social networks to communicate in the L2. Therefore, encouraging
students to interact in the target language during SA, either with native or international
speakers, is key to promote effective language learning, and should become a main
objective of university exchange programmes.
In the future, it would be interesting to survey SA students before and after their
sojourn as well as to carry out a thorough examination of students’ context while abroad,
since it may provide more data for the analysis of the diverse attitudinal outcomes. More
research is also needed in order to shed some light on the different individual and
sociocultural factors that affect SA in order to maximise the benefits of the sojourn
experience. Furthermore, a larger sample could allow for generalisations of the impact of
SA on students’ motivation, attitudes and anxiety.
Despite the limitations, this study demonstrates that, when learners strive to
become competent L2 speakers and to be part of an international community, SA provides
an optimal context for the development of both linguistic and extralinguistic skills that
ultimately lead to L2 proficiency.
References
Allen, H.W. (2002). Does Study Abroad Make a Difference? An Investigation of
Linguistic and Motivational Outcomes. PhD thesis, Emory University.
Allen, H. W. and Herron, C. (2003). A Mixed Methodology Investigation of the
Linguistic and Affective Outcomes of Summer. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), pp.
370–385.
22
Apple, M.T., Da Silva, D. and Fellner, T. (2017). L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian
Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), pp.
774–783.
Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in second
language acquisition: A study of francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 9, pp. 123–133.
Coleman, J. A. (1997). State of the art article: residence abroad within language study.
Language Teaching, 30 (1), pp. 1–20.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in
Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dörnyei Z., Csizér, K. and Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, Language Attitudes and
Globalization: A Hungarian Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dufon, M. and Churchill, E. (2006). Language Learners in a Study Abroad Context.
Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
“Facts and figures: Mobility in higher education” (2018). UNESCO. Retrieved 10
February 2018, from https://en.unesco.org/node/252278
Freed, B. (1995). Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Gabrys-Barker, D. and Bielska, J. (2013). The Affective Dimension in Second Language
Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of
Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
23
Garrett, P., Coupland, N. and Williams, A. (2003). Investigating Language Attitudes
Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., Dewaele, J.M. (2017). New Insights into Language Anxiety:
Theory, Research and Educational Implications. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gregersen, T. and MacIntyre, P.D. (2014). Capitalizing on Language Learners’
Individuality: From Premise to Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Horwitz, E.K. (2017). On the Misreading of Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) and the
Need to Balance Anxiety Research and the Experiences of Anxious Language Learners.
In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney and J. M. Dewaele (eds.) New Insights into Language Anxiety:
Theory, Research and Educational Implications, pp. 31–49. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Housen, A., Schoonjans, E., Janssens, S., Welcomme, A., Schoonheere, E. and Pierrard,
M. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed
SLA – the role of language prominence. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
49(2), pp. 83–112.
Isabelli-García, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes:
Implications for second language acquisition. In M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds.)
Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts, pp, 231–258. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of
research. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New
York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, Vol. 1. London:
Longman.
Lim, H.Y. (2009). Culture, Attributions, and Language Anxiety. Applied Language
Learning, 19(1), pp. 29–52.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
24
In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bahtia (eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp.
413–468. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Lopez, M. Y. and Gonzales, R.D.L.C. (2017). Examining the Relationship between
Foreign Language Learning Motivation and Critical Thinking Motivation: The Case of
Filipino Foreign Language Learners. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds.)
L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts, pp. 94–118. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mora, J.C. (2014). The role of onset level on L2 perceptual phonological development
after formal instruction and study abroad. In C. Pérez-Vidal (ed.) Language Acquisition
in Study Abroad and Formal Instruction Contexts, pp. 167–
194. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2014). Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and Formal Instruction
Contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ross, A.S. and Rivers, D.J. (2018). Emotional experiences beyond the classroom:
Interactions with the social world. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
8 (1), pp. 103–126.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In H.G.
Widdowson, G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.) Principle and Practice in Applied
Linguistics: Studies in Honour of HG Widdowson, pp. 125–144. Oxford: OUP.
Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. (2003). Study abroad language proficiency, and learner beliefs
about language learning. JALT Journal, 25 (1), pp. 63–85.
Trenchs-Parera, M. and Juan-Garau, M. (2014). A longitudinal study of learners’
motivation and beliefs in at home and study abroad contexts. In C. Pérez-Vidal
(ed.) Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and Formal Instruction Contexts, pp. 259–
282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ueki, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2015). Study abroad and motivation to learn a second
language. Exploring the possibility of the L2 Motivational Self System. Language,
Education & Technology, 52, pp. 1–25.
Ueki, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2017). The Impact of Studying Abroad Experience on the
Affective Changes Related to L2 Motivation: A Qualitative Study of the Processes of
25
Change. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds.) L2 Selves and Motivations in
Asian Contexts, pp. 119–133. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Willis, F., Doble, G., Sankarayya, U. and Smithers, A. (1977). Residence Abroad and the
Student of Modern Languages: A Preliminary Study. Bradford: University of Bradford
Modern Language Centre.
Yager, K. (1998). Learning Spanish in Mexico: The effect of informal contact and student
attitudes on language gain. Hispania, 81(4), pp. 898–913.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in L2: The Japanese EFL context.
Modern Language Journal, 86(1), pp. 54–66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L. and Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and
affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language
Learning, 54 (1), pp. 119–152.
Appendix 1: AMTB Survey
Gender:
Study Abroad country: Check the box that best matches your agreement with the following statements:
1 Disagree
2 Slightly disagree
3 Neutral
4 Slightly Agree
5 Agree
1. After my stay abroad it still embarrasses me to volunteer answers in our classes in English.
26
2. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English is important because it will enable me to meet and converse with more and varied people.
3. Before studying abroad, I used to be more afraid that the other students would laugh at me when I spoke English.
4. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English can be important to me because I will need it for my future career.
5. Studying abroad increased the desire of speaking English perfectly. I wish I could speak English perfectly.
6. When I finish university, I shall give up the study of English entirely because I am not interested in it.
7. I enjoy more meeting and listening to people who speak English after having studied abroad.
8. I still get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my classes in English despite having been abroad.
9. I hate English as a result of my stay abroad.
10. Studying English can be important to me because I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job.
11. Even after my stay abroad, I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in our classes in English.
12. After my stay abroad, I plan to learn as much English as possible.
13. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English can be important for me because other people will respect me more if I have a knowledge of a foreign language.
14. Even after studying abroad, I still feel that the
27
other students speak English better than I do.
15. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English can be important for me because I will be able to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups.
16. I love learning English as a result of my stay abroad.
How much English did you speak while you were abroad? (circle one of the options)
0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
After the period abroad, do you feel more... (answer each question explaining your thoughts):
• Confident to speak in English? ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
• More willing to use English?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
-Has your attitude towards English and/or English native speakers changed after your stay abroad? Why? ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
28
-Would you say your level of English has improved after your stay abroad? ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Appendix 2: Results of the AMTB Survey
1-2
3
4-5
Q1. After my stay abroad it still embarrasses me to volunteer answers in our classes in English.
121 (48%)
7 (28%)
6 (24%)
1 Number of answers out of 25.
29
Q2. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English is important because it will enable me to meet and converse with more and varied people.
2 (8%)
4 (16%)
19 (76%)
Q3. Before studying abroad, I used to be more afraid that the other students would laugh at me when I spoke English.
10 (40%)
2 (8%)
13 (52%)
Q4. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English can be important to me because I will need it for my future career.
1 (4%)
7 (28%)
17 (68%)
Q5. Studying abroad increased the desire of speaking English perfectly. I wish I could speak English perfectly.
2 (8%)
4 (16%)
19 (76%)
Q6. When I finish university, I shall give up the study of English entirely because I am not interested in it.
25 (100%)
0
0
Q7. I enjoy more meeting and listening to people who speak English after having studied abroad.
3 (12%)
5 (20%)
17 (68%)
Q8. I still get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my classes in English despite having been abroad.
12 (48%)
5 (20%)
8 (32%)
Q9. I hate English as a result of my stay abroad.
25 (100%)
0
0
Q10. Studying English can be important to me because I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job.
0
2 (8%)
23 (92%)
Q11. Even after my stay abroad, I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in our classes in English.
12 (48%)
6 (24%)
7 (28%)
Q12. After my stay abroad, I plan to learn as much English as possible.
1 (4%)
5 (20%)
19 (76%)
Q13. My stay abroad made me realise that studying English can be important for me because other people will respect me more if I have a knowledge of a foreign language.
6 (24%)
7 (28%)
12 (48%)
Q14. Even after studying abroad, I still feel that the other students speak English better than I do.
14 (56%)
4 (16%)
7 (28%)
Q15. My stay abroad made me realise that
30
studying English can be important for me because I will be able to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups.
0
5 (20%)
17 (68%)
Q16. I love learning English as a result of my stay abroad.
4 (16%)
7 (28%)
14 (56%)